The Fires of Hell Have Gone Out: No Eternal Torment

Anyone who wants to go over my reasons again can re-read through my posts.And there is no reason why I should HAVE to provide evidence excluding the book of Revelation. Whether I can or not is beside the point. I don't have to meet that arbitrary criteria of yours.

Hi Ringo. Go to my Message 214 and you have the evidence for what you requested. What do you do with that evidence, my friend?1. Rev 20:10 = Devil and angels tormented in lake of fire.
2. Matt (abe:25:41) = Folks on left cast into lake of fire prepared for devil and angels.
3. (abe: How about interpreting as per what is written as we do with other textbooks in life?)Edited by buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by buzsaw, : Abe: 3. How about interpreting at face value as per what is written, like we do with other our other textbooks in life? Edited by buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Deja vu all over again:

quote:

---

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever

---

quote:

---

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

---

Revelation mentions torment for the devil, the beast and the false prophet - not for the general public. Matthew mentions no torment at all for the goats. Even assuming that the two passages are talking about the same fire, I see little or no overlap between them.As I have said and said and said: The fire may be everlasting, but the fuel is consumed. The fire lasts as long as there is fuel, but the individual fuel units do not. There is nothing in your "evidence" to indicate otherwise.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Your case would be more persuasive if you did (or if you could). If you're trying to persuade somebody (not necessarily me), why wouldn't you present your strongest case?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's odd. I do.

Speaking of childish ... I think it is so, of a poster, who having been corrected, continues to pretend as if he has not.Perhaps such a tactic is good for newcomers to the board who may wonder why the other party won't answer their "dare yas." Such replies would only amount in restating and rewriting points which I have already gone over. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Once again, instead of blustering, why not at least post a link to what you have "already stated" and "already written"? Newcomers to the board would find it easier to decide if your claims are true.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If any Newcomer wants to ask me a question about what I wrote, I'll respect that. Then I'll either answer again or go through the labor of finding the links. There's no need for me to do that with you Ringo.By the way you said that I was way off to charge you with denying the Diety of Jesus Christ. Does that mean you can say that your God is the man Jesus? Don't go hide behind the "Off Topic" flag now. Do you mean that God to you is the man Jesus? I think a yes or no should do it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

There's another oppurtunity for you to post a link to where I have denied the deity of Jesus.But that's way off topic. The question here is: can you make a Biblical case for eternal torment that doesn't depend on your pet interpretation of the Revelation?So far, the answer seems to be that you can't.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ringo and Jaywill,

​

Please keep to the topic and stop the personal evaluations.

​

Also update your subtitles.

​

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Thank you

quote:

---

You seem to miss my point, being that when you crossreference the Rev text with the Matthew text you come up with the same place for the devil, his angels and people.

---

I do understand your point, but you haven't actually addressed mine in Message 217.How have I made a contradiction of any sort? Message 217Now the beginning of the sheep and goat story in Matthew starts: Earlier in Chapter 20 of Revelation we have: So when does the Son of Man come in his glory? The first resurrection or after the thousand years?IMO, these two verses do not describe the same event. If you feel that they do, please show me.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

But you have to do more than that. You have to explain WHY we should think the same result does not happen to others.

---

I have explained my view in Message 231 and the posts it references. The verse itself does not state "others."I think it is actually your turn to explain how that verse does refer to more than what is stated.

quote:

---

Give me a reason why there is a "Kinder Gentlier Damnation" in Revelation 20:15.

---

I can't give you a reason for something I haven't stated. Where have I said anything about a kinder damnation?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Ringo, You're funny. To call quotations "pet interpretations." Not much interpretation is needed. Proving the matter of eternal punishment in eternal fire without refering to Revelation is your artificial and desperate criteria to reject the most obvious.As stated before, whether I can with or without Revelation show eternal punishment not an issue. If I refer ONLY to the clear statements of Revelation to establish this it is perfectly legitimate.And the fact of the matter is that I established the teaching with other verses like those in Matthew chapter 25.I do not have to submit to your moving the goal post around. And I don't agree that if I really cared to be more persuasive I would avoid quoting Revelation or interpreting the clear quotes in Revelation.IMO You blew it. You have no case. And you're beating a dead horse to appear that a shred of legitimacy in your Annhilationist theory still remains in this debate. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

purpledawn, I agree with you. They don't speak of the same event.But they both describe an event of the lost being sent to the eternal punishment of eternal fire.I never said Rev. 20 and Matt. 25 describe the same event. The two passages not speaking of the same event will not establish a Universalist or Annhilationist denial of eternal damnation of torment. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

1. You're not making sense. Everlasting fire means just that with no mention of fuel consumed.2. Add to these the account of the rich man being tormented and not consumed as well as other texts with similar implications. You become very hard pressed to justify your position. It appears that come hell or high water you're not going to be convinced so if this doesn't do it I give up, not on my position, but on convincing you of this obvious truth about what the Bible says.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW